Mass Protest in UK Against 'Bombers' Blair and Bush

[Sandman]

Doing a fine bit of conclusion-jumping there, Ned.

[Ned]

Sandman, Perhaps. But why can't the anti-Saddam faction do the same as the pro-Saddam faction? We don't seem to differ on the alternative courses of action, only on the consequences.

[Kramerman]

Ive agreed with just about every word Ned has said so far, and seeing as he is a bit more eloquent than I (I only have so much time i can spend on the forum), I'll just let him do all the talking . Tho, I'll feel free to chime in when ever/ if ever he fails me, heh.

Kman

[Sandman]

I'm not pro-Saddam, that's a false dilemma.

Your difference between effective and ineffective weapons inspections is a nuclear war in the Middle East, with a jibe at the UN included.

Since the Bush administration has already decided it wants war, no amount of weapons inspections will prove "effective". Ludicrous demands are the first chapter in the war-starting handbook. Any engineering department in any university could produce a nuclear bomb within weeks, if it had enough uranium.

I can just see it now, Saddam refuses to submit to a full-body cavity search, US declares war. After all, he could hide enough anthax up his deranged rectum to kill millions.

What's wrong with police and intelligence activity aimed at stopping him building a credible nuclear weapons programme, in the unlikely event that he actually wants to start a war in which he would certainly die?

[Bosh]

The US, understandably, finds that laughable.

Agreed.

The problem in my opinion is the FED. They need to lower interest rates. This has been obvious for quite some time.

Well the problem is that they already did quite a bit after September 11th and now if they lower them too much more they'll start getting close to 0 and we'll get Japanized.

Do you see any other alternatives?

How about let the neighboring Arab states know that if they want to get together to take out Saddam they've got US help and tell Israel to go **** itself until it pulls out of the occupied territories. Sounds good to me.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boshko

Originally posted by notyoueither Note that every city mentioned is a port or can be reached by sea...

What?? We're going to have the Iraqi navy doing trans-continental sneak-attacks?
All this talk of Saddam attacking the rest of the world out of the blue is a little bizarre, that would be suicidal and the last thing the bastard wants to do is die.

It seems a lot of people are fairly well stuck in conventional terms and feel that only what has happened in the past should be considered as possible in the future. It must be rude being woken up from time to time by people doing something unexpected.

Funny thing is these new and unexpected things keep on happening.

Gee, I wonder why the American government has become much more preoccupied with the possible in the last 12 months?

[Ned]

Sandman, I'm just pulling your leg on the "pro-Saddam" jibe. This is like others saying the pro-choice crowd are "anti-life."

But, if I understand you correctly, you would choose option 3, and "hope" for the best.

However, option 4 remains the preferred solution. It can happen only if the use of force is entirely credible if Saddam starts to again play games. It seems clear that Bush has you convinced that he intends to use force. So at least the threat is credible.

But now we need the UN to cooperate. If it does, there is a good chance, in my view, that Saddam will back down.

[Sandman]

Nothing the Iraqis can say or do is likely to prove good enough. If they agree to weapons inspections, they're 'playing games', if they don't, then they're developing weapons of mass destruction. There is no way for Iraq to do the right thing.

[Ned]

Sandman, that certainly is what Saddam says about Bush. But is this an argument for not trying option 4?

Besides, the issue of whether Saddam is complying or not will be based on reports from the UN inspectors to the Security Council. If they say Saddam is cooperating and in compliance, Bush will not have the legal authority under the Congressional resolution to use force.

On the contrary, if the UN inspectors certify that Saddam is not cooperating, the UN will undoubtedly itself authorize force. If it doesn't, then indeed, the UN will have gone the way of the League of Nations: Issuing proclamations that were ignored because there was no enforcement mechanism.

[Roland]

Let's see your options:

Forgetting 1-3:

"4) No. 2, plus effective weapons inspections and disarmament; (Saddam is defanged, no war.)"

Would be nice but that's not what the Bush admin wants.

"5) Arm the rebels;"

What rebels ?

"6) Coalition removes Saddam and installs moderate Muslim coalition government."

That would be the best solution but in the current situation it simply has too many drawbacks.

"Do you see any other alternatives?"

The weapon inspection option backed by threat of force would be much more effective if the SC could get around to authorize force now. But everyone is dragging his feet on this one as everyone knows the Bush administration will abuse such an authorization.

The regime change option needs a ****load more preparation.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Roland
The weapon inspection option backed by threat of force would be much more effective if the SC could get around to authorize force now. But everyone is dragging his feet on this one as everyone knows the Bush administration will abuse such an authorization.

Let's not do it because one bad ass subject to a congress and a court will be worse than the other bad ass who is subject to no one?

In any event, the UN has to act and then Bush has to fuss it up before the world can judge just how bad a job he did of it. No?

Or should they not pass resolutions because some Mercan somewhere might prove the rest of the world right?

[Roland]

"Let's not do it because one bad ass subject to a congress and a court will be worse than the other bad ass who is subject to no one?"

Congress is caving in to the war rhetoric, and what court ?

[notyoueither]

[Roland]

Oh no, not the SMILEY!

Anyway, what's the point ? You believe Bush does not want the war, or what ?

[Ned]

Roland, Thanks for your post.

I know you have been following events in Congress. The draft resolution authorizes force only if diplomatic means fail. So if they actually work, Bush would have no authority to go to war. If he did regardless, he probably would lose all support in the US and set off a constitution crisis. So I don't think it will happen.

However, if the UN does not act effectively, Congress and therefore the United States of America, not Bush, will have declared war on Iraq.

So to avoid war, the UN must act and act effectively to disarm Saddam.